People such as George Soros and Michael Moore certainly talk a good game, but the next Mother Teresa they are not. Mother Teresa never criticized the free-market system; wealth just wasn't for her. Soros and Moore are quite the opposite. They will never take a vow of poverty and dedicate themselves to helping the poor. They just want our civilization to take a vow of poverty and become poor.

This has caused many to wonder: How can someone preach socialism while being the most rapacious "capitalist" imaginable? Well, I have a theory about this.

It has often been observed that those who preach liberalism the most practice charity the least, and research bears this out. For example, in a piece titled "Bleeding Heart Tightwads," self-proclaimed liberal Nicholas Kristof wrote,

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Then there is a fascinating article by Peter Schweizer, titled "Don't listen to the liberals -- Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows." In defense of this thesis, the author presents some scientific findings and then a bit of anecdotal evidence, writing, "Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers."

Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal that Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and more likely agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."

You don't need to explain that to Doug Urbanski, the former business manager for Left-wing firebrand and documentary-maker Michael Moore. "He [Moore] is more money-obsessed than anyone I have known -- and that's saying a lot," claims Urbanski.

The article also cites one Linda Hirshman, who "tells women not to have more than one baby so they can concentrate on a career. 'Find the money,' she advises."

Additionally, Schweizer reports on studies showing that Leftists are the embodiment of envy. This finding should come as no surprise, despite liberals' propensity to rail against the rich and preach redistribution of wealth. Because, you see, it's not that they care about the downtrodden so much -- it's just that they're just insanely jealous of those who have more than they do.

But what about advocating socialism? Why would these greedy leftists try to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs they crave? To understand this, we have to delve into the psychology of vice.

There is a chasm between the heart and head. It is one thing to know something is wrong; it's quite another to feel it on an emotional level. This is probably why Confucius once said (I'm paraphrasing), "It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know." The heart is both a terrible master and a terribly alluring one, as its fires so often trump the head's cool logic. It is the demagogue of the mind's elections, whose rhetoric is hard to resist because it just feels so right.

Now, let's talk about that seemingly greedy man, George Soros. As a 14-year-old Jewish boy in Nazi-occupied Budapest, Hungary in 1944, he posed as the godson of a government official who had been bribed to protect him. Soros then accompanied his protector while the man would make his rounds confiscating property from Jews who were being shipped off to death camps. During a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft, Soros said he felt no guilt over this and explained why, stating, "Well, of course I c -- I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was -- well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."

It's just like in markets...that's an interesting comment. But what is this similarity of which Soros speaks? Is it just that by his lights, in both situations he had to choose between being the predator and the prey? Well, read two more statements Soros made in the interview. When asked about his mercenary currency trading, he said, "I don't feel guilty. Because I'm engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt."

An amoral activity or an amoral man?

And when asked whether he deserved the blame for various nations' financial collapses, he replied, "I am basically there to -- to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of -- of what I do."

No, but he sure looked at the social consequences of what George Bush (whom he called a Nazi in his book) did. But I digress.

It's clear that Soros sees our free-market system as an evil, much like the Nazi system whose death camps he eluded. And I wouldn't be surprised if, just as when he was 14, Soros sees himself as a victim caught in its web (the difference is that in 1944, he actually was a victim, whereas now he is the spider). If he doesn't rape the system, someone else will. Yet he is a victim only of his own greed.

Taking this a bit deeper, it's much like someone in the grip of any vice. It's like a man who just cannot resist the bottle and gets falling-down drunk. He may sometimes have moments of clarity during which he actually hates his vice -- and he may start to hate alcohol itself. At these times he may wish it didn't exist, for then the temptation wouldn't be there. But as long as it does exist, he can't help but partake.

George Soros is a greedy man. Because of this, he cannot be "free" of his vice until the opportunity to make money is gone. He cannot retire, cannot rest, as long as there is another dollar to be made in the evil system. He wishes his "bottle" didn't exist, but as long as it does, he can't help but partake. Thus does he want Profit Prohibition.

This should surprise no one. I once heard of a woman who was told by her Leftist college professor not to give money to charity because it was the government's job. But you see, to liberals, everything is little g's job -- and also its responsibility. In just the way a criminal isn't responsible for his actions because "society made him the way he is," Leftists want the government to fight their temptations for them, and they see a free-market society as being one big occasion of sin. The message is simple: It's not my fault if the government places us in a situation in which we can be immoral. Just as liberals outsource their charitable responsibilities, they outsource their moral ones.

The problem is that it doesn't work. There will always be "the other side" and those "from whom the thing is being taken away." There will always be an "evil system." In communist governments, those in power -- who are more equal than others -- get the new Mercedes, the plush apartment, the fine food, and all the other luxuries any commissar could want. And the George Soroses of the world would always try to be among them, for greed still lay in their hearts. And it wouldn't be hard for them to rationalize, either. They would simply reason, "If I'm not more equal than others, someone else will be. If I don't do it, someone else will."

There is another theory. With wealth comes a sense of fame and power. With the super-wealthy they think they could change the world for the better (aka as income redistribution) and they try doing this either by themselves or using political surrogates. In this role, they take on the persona of secular Mother Teresas. Soros works the duality. Hollywood does the same.

the article asks why do the left try to tear down the system that feeds them? Well, they figured they’re exempted from it. The higher taxes don’t effect them one bit. While everyone else become poorer, they feel much better because now they have more than everyone else

“If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me into trouble,” [Soros] once wrote. When asked to elaborate on that passage by The Independent, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of God, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” - George Soros

No offense to the author, but that's a totally ridiculous comment to make. Mother Teresa never sought to bring about social, political, or economic change. She only sought to open missions and hospices to tend to the sick and dying.

George Soros is a greedy man. Because of this, he cannot be "free" of his vice until the opportunity to make money is gone. He cannot retire, cannot rest, as long as there is another dollar to be made in the evil system. He wishes his "bottle" didn't exist, but as long as it does, he can't help but partake. Thus does he want Profit Prohibition.

Don't believe it for one second. Marxism is a criminal enterprise. There is money to be make in destruction, in leveling others. The bolshevik revolution was not idealistic. Trotsky had been the leader of a criminal gang on the lower east side. Stalin a thief. What marxism is are thugs and street criminals allied with the very wealthy. Vast fortunes were made destroying Russia. Vast fortunes were made off the peoples of Eastern Europe.

Bella Dodd, among other high ranking CPUSA members who recanted the ideology, wrote how now and then she and others got a view of who was really in control:

William Wiener, head of Century Publishers, was known as the top financial agent of the communist movement, and operated a large financial empire. He was a mild, pudgy little man, who wore Brooks Brothers suits, smoked expensive cigars, and frequented expensive restaurants. The average Party member had no contact with men like him, for a functionary who earned an average of fifty dollars a week seldom saw this side of the Party.

Wiener had a number of financial pools operating to gather in capital from wealthy, middle-class Party people. They maintained offices with scores of accountants and attorneys from whom the communist movement drew reserves.

In 1945 several corporations were established for trade with China in one of which was Frederick V. Field. Under the direction of Wiener and others, such corporations hired and maintained a different type of communist, better-dressed, better-fed, more sophisticated, and much more venomous.

The export-import group was especially interesting. I recall one group of communist operators who brought watch parts from Switzerland, assembled them here, and sent the finished product to Argentina. I met one man who was making regular flying trips to Czechoslovakia, engaged in the deadly business of selling arms and ammunition, for today the communist agent engaged in international trade is far more effective than the old-type political agitator.

Now, as I traveled about the city trying to help raise money for the Italian elections, I realized more than ever how many major financial operations were touched by the Party. In one office we visited a Party concern that bought pig iron in Minnesota and shipped it to northern Italy where, with the help of Italian Communist Party leaders, it was allocated to communist-led plants and there processed into steel and shipped to Argentina.

In another office were lawyers who were deeply involved. in the business of making money as custodians of alien property  that of Italian citizens which had been seized during the war. Assignments like these were not easy to get, but these men got them . . .School of Darkness

Elizabeth Bentley, once in charge of the largest spy ring in American history, wrote of the other side...the enforcers...the chekisty who killed for these men. They murdered one of her friends, Juliet Poynter...a murder which helped her flip and turn on her former comrades.

To try to explain the schizophrenia of the greedy socialist, one must move away from pedestrian motivations and consider the Old Testament. The compulsions which drive the likes of George Soros are best understood in the context of the patriarchs.

Here is a compendium of my old posts concerning George Soros:

The arrogance of George Soros is all of an elegant and polished type. He has even contrived to set down his epistemology for all to read. This is the supreme arrogance. He purports to know how we know what is real and not real. The Gospel according to Soros. But to establish his credentials he did not rise again on the third day, he just made a lot of money.

A self-made man of normal dimensions of vanity would content himself with boring us all with accounts of how he did it. Soros' conceit swells beyond mere vanity, he is not content with blowing hard about how he made his money, he wants to tell you how to think, and what to believe, and above all, to tell you what is really real. He knows how others deceive themselves but he has the true insight into reality. His pendulum theory of investments and markets is a symptom of this solipsism. His book is turgid beyond description and self-indulgent beyond endurance. But it must be so if he is to make a universe out of clay.

So Soros must play God, the oldest and basest sin of all. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all played God and, interestingly, they all had their own epistemologies. Hitler had his myth of the Aryan superiority. Stalin his cult of the individual. And Mao his infallible wisdom. The historical examples are endless. The point is that not all these villains justified their power lusts on power alone-rather they all created their own worldview.

Ultimately, these epistemologies all come around to the man who would be king. Ann Coulter has identified it, they think they are gods. Hitler chewed the carpets, Stalin murdered out of paranoia, and Mao did little girls. These grotesqueries are far beneath Soros who would probably never even wittingly split an infinitive but he is compelled just as the others to play the highest stakes game of all in the temporal world. And therein lies his danger.

While looking through my cached posts for comments describing George Soros as an international freebooter, a real Goldfinger like character, I discovered this Investor's Business Daily editorial about Soros which I had saved. I reproduce selected paragraphs from it and regret that I did not save the address so that the original source can be verified.

George Soros bears a striking and chilling resemblance to the millionaire's son of a German industrialist who was distressed that Communism had not overtaken his native Germany as all true believers assumed it would in 1919. So he convened at his own expense a collection of Jewish communist educators and formed The Frankfurt School whose express purpose was to undermine the institutions identified by these communists to be the reasons why communism had not taken over. Thus the birth of cultural Marxism, relativism, grotesque feminism, anti-nationalism, critical theory, antiwar movements, anti-sovereignty (especially the later of the United States), and of course anti-church and anti-family movements. There is not one of these features of the original Frankfurt school that Soros could not underwrite today. In fact, as the following editorial shows he has in fact underwritten virtually all of them:

To read Soros' own spun story, he's a Jewish survivor of Nazi-occupied Hungary who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, studied economics in England, became a U.S. citizen in 1961 and made a multibillion-dollar fortune as a financier who pioneered hedge funds.

Financier George Soros, 77, with a fortune estimated at $8.5 billion, uses some of it to fund radical groups like MoveOn.org.

But Soros is no hands-off donor. According to the Open Society Institute's Web site: "Despite the breadth of his endeavors, Soros is personally involved in planning and implementing many of the foundation network's projects."

And since 2003, tearing down what he views as the "fascist" tyranny of the United States, as he has put it, is "the central focus of my life."

Through networks of nongovernmental organizations, Soros intends to ruin the presidency of George W. Bush "by any legal means necessary" and knock America off its global pedestal

Best known among these groups is MoveOn.org, a previously small fringe-left group to which Soros has given $5 million since 2004. Bulked up by cash, the group now uses professional public relations tactics to undercut the Iraq War effort, with its latest a full-page New York Times ad that branded Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us."

"We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process," he told this year's Davos conference in Switzerland.

Soros acolyte Arianna Huffington ...

Soros also has financed spin outfits such as Media Matters that specialize in providing distorted conservative political statements as grist for leftist politicians and media.

Soros pledged $10 million to ACT, which has since been fined $775,000 for illegally funneling $70 million set aside for voter registrations to Democratic candidates.

He also gave at least $150,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group best known for pushing minimum-wage hikes, marching for illegal-immigrant amnesty and harassing Wal-Mart. ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 13 states since 2004 and was convicted of falsifying signatures in a voter registration drive last July, drawing a fine of $25,000 in Washington state.

... he still heads a secretive rich-man's club called "Democracy Alliance" that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN.

He has handed $3.1 million to the left-wing Tides Foundation, which funds organizations, such as the Sea Shepherds, Earth First! and the Ruckus Society, that have condoned or engaged in eco-terrorism.

...he favors U.N. dominance in world affairs, sees the European Union as a model for "open society" and has called for a global central bank.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this vision, or who doesn't fit cozily into his multilateral model, gets a visit from Soros-backed groups.

MoveOn.org, for example, led the charge to keep John Bolton out of a permanent seat in the U.N., and Bankwatch piled on to topple Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

In fact, pick any cause that seeks to weaken the U.S. and it's hard not to find Soros' name on its list of financial backers. Most of these causes are financed by relatively small amounts, but that's all that's needed to make trouble.

It's probably no coincidence that Soros was a big backer of campaign finance reforms that have allowed nominally nonpartisan groups like MoveOn.org to strike with the kinds of tactics they are using.

Soros himself does not believe in victory in Iraq and wants to keep America from achieving it.

"The war on terror cannot be won," he has said.

I do not think it is moral exaggeration to liken Soros to Goldfinger. The man is evil incarnate. His threat to withdraw to London is illustrative of his perception of the world in which he regards himself as subject to the patriotic call of no country. All is grist for his mill, all is there for him to manipulate.

The results of the last election reveal, at least in part, just how pathetically vulnerable we are to the machinations of this man.

What an interesting response, pregnant with insight in every paragraph. You anticipate much of what I have been thinking when I posed the question about Obama versus Soros.

I think you describe Soros very well. He comes across as a bloodless mechanic who would cheerfully autopsy his own mother. His godlessness is scary because he is actually waging a war for atheism.

I too of wondered how long it will take Soros and Obama to have a falling out. When Hillary accepted the job of Secretary of State I was baffled as many other posters about why she would do so and I attempted to explain it on pedestrian grounds that she would be only one voice among a hundred in the Senate but of the whole world is your stage as Secretary of State etc. but recently I have been wondering about another scenario: perhaps the deal was brokered by Soros.

Recall that Obama made a pilgrimage to Soros to kiss ring just before he announced his intention to run. Soros then signaled his approval by making public a maximum contribution. Up until that time, it had appeared that Hillary was Soros' anointed. Much of Soros' team had been drawn from the ranks of the Clinton camp. I think one can draw a straight line from the Frankfurt school through George Soros to Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton, and obviously, Barak Obama. But as between Hillary and Obama, clearly Obama had the closer and more committed affiliation to the Alinsky school. This was undoubtedly very compelling to George Soros.

Since before the election of 2004, Soros had been co-opting the Democrat party. This is a case where following the money really tells the story. I understand that Soros no longer has to buy the Democrat party because by virtue of the 527s and the 501(c)3s Soros now in effect rakes in all the Democrat money. He has leveraged his own money until he now virtually controls the bulk of the money used to buy elections.

If that is the case, it would explain why Hillary might take the secretaryship of state. She realizes that the real play domestically is between Soros and Obama. The Congress has become a sock puppet and she would be simply shut out. She might have been given a certain brief by Soros to conduct foreign policy.

Again without citation or citing support, I think Barak's flip-flop on the prosecution of lawyers and principles of the interrogation matter can be traced to a phone call from Soros to Obama. If that is the case-and I say again I do not have any support, just a recollection of having read it-it would illustrate the degree of control Soros has on this administration.

One could look at the recent appointment of Rosa Brooks to the Pentagon not as an apparatchik there to spy for Obama, but as a Soros' commissar. How many commissars are peppered throughout the administration to report to Soros?

If Soros has only a fraction of the power, mostly from the purse and not entirely his own which I suspect he might have, it would explain why Obama will have no resistance from his own party. Congress knows what happened to Joe Lieberman and few think they will have as many lives as he did. Soros can withhold funds, fund primary challengers, and hurl move on.org at any maverick Democrat. This would go a long way to explaining why there is no sane voice rising up among the Democrats in Congress speaking out against this mindless spending.

Soros might have something on Obama. Obama might realize that Soros has enough agents planted within his administration that he could cause real damage in the event of an open breach.

I have been pondering these things for some time and have not posted on them for fear of seeming a tinfoil conspiracy nut. But your responses to my teaser were so on the money that I can no longer hold back. I just finished listening to Face the Nation and it is apparent that those of us on Free Republic either get it or we are utterly insane because we could not be more light years removed from the general consensus of the establishment which is coming over the Sunday talk shows. I mean this quite seriously. I am constitutionally allergic to conspiracy theories. My whole life, my whole exposure to human nature, my study of history, all confirm that Occam's razor is the sanest approach. And yet I find myself deporting from this commonsense approach and venturing into very dark places. I say only in my own defense that I go where logic takes me.

No offense to the author, but that's a totally ridiculous comment to make. Mother Teresa never sought to bring about social, political, or economic change. She only sought to open missions and hospices to tend to the sick and dying.

Your comment and his are the same. You are both saying Mother Teresa didn't care about money. He is merely pointing out that someone who truly doesn't care about money walks the walk and doesn't necessarily talk the talk. He is saying, in essence, that Mother Teresa never said bad things about capitalism but just the same refrained from seeking wealth, unlike George Soros and Fat Man Moore who bad mouth capitalism constantly but grab as many bucks as they can.

apparent that those of us on Free Republic either get it or we are utterly insane because we could not be more light years removed from the general consensus of the establishment which is coming over the Sunday talk show

I find myself in complete agreement with this feeling. My life has gotten totally surreal in the last 2 years. Either I am insane or the people running the US Government are, we cannot both be living in the same reality.

I don't put political stickers on my car so that it doesn't get keyed. I would never bother a liberal's car that was plastered with 0bama stickers, but I know good and well that if I put an anti-0bama sticker on mine, it will get keyed, and it won't be Sarah Palin supporters that did it.

"Most surprising of all is reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers."

Both the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey reveal that Left-wingers are more likely to rate 'high income' as an important factor in choosing a job, more likely to say "after good health, money is the most important thing," and more likely agree with the statement "there are no right or wrong ways to make money."

The statements above remind me so much of the "Ferengi rules of acquisition" (from one of the Star Trek spin offs). Look it up and see what I mean.

It is Sunday afternoon here in Germany with a couple of inches of snow on the ground and I am killing time waiting for my wife to come home from Munich by watching Sam Tannenhaus, author of the great biography of Whittaker Chambers, hold forth for an hour and eight minutes about why the conservative movement is dead apart from last gasps in the theatrics of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and why Barack Obama is so gifted-but not ideological, in fact, Barack Obama is conservative in the true sense of the word.

I just listened to Tannenhaus describe Sarah Palin as a "trailer trash version of feminism", a figure most "similar to Joseph McCarthy."

Additionally, Schweizer reports on studies showing that Leftists are the embodiment of envy.

This is the root motivation of leftism. Some things to understand:

Envy is not about having what someone else has, but destroying what they have. This is more evil than thievery because it destroys America's wealth rather than redistributes who has it. Envy is usually the root cause of war and murder.

Greed is just an extreme form of envy. They are the same motivation. Most greedy people are leftists.

Rich leftists are motivated by envy deflection, not guilt. It's a strategy to keep their wealth. Guilt is a cover word.

Envy is partly a function of population density. People that live in cities see others with more wealth and status than they have more frequently so have more frequent feelings of envy. Living in an ant-hill is not natural for humans.

Michael Moore is a purveyor of envy-porn. He's doing a service by providing a release for those with an envy problem while separating them from their money.

Liberals are a jaded bunch, and in my opinion born that way. Liberals are feudalistic at heart, they lust after capital, and spend their every waking moment designing powers to be that become their own personal spigots to provide them their earthly stashes. They are a miserable lot and care not what their end will be. Sad part for them is they will not take one thin dime with them when they depart their flesh vessels.

Liberals are just weak POSs that espouse the mantra of liberalism to enrich themselves without guilt, They always want charity to be given to those who need it just not their charity.

Ah but liberals strength is found in numbers. They know better than any other mindset instinctively how to build a crowd. The liberal mind is all about them self, and how to feed their over estimated self importance. They are mentally still a two year old that discovers which personality to use to get what they want. The liberal will claim to be an advocate for the poor and downtrodden, but their motivation is to keep people in the poor as that is where their power is derived. Where would they be if nobody needed them?

Libs outsource their charity to government by being loyal Dem voters. Step over the homeless on the way to work? Vote Democrat to expand entitlement programs? Cheat on your wife? Vote Democrat to convince yourself you’re a defender of women’s rights? Think blacks really don’t have what it takes to make it? Vote Democrat to provide a raft of social programs when affirmative action isn’t enough. In short, voting Democrat assuages a very guilty conscience.

I like the way you put it. Liberals are a vapid, faithless, bunch of two year old totalitarians projecting their psychoses onto those they disagree with. To watch CNN and its daily brainwashing shows the epitome of lunacy. But this is how Soros and his minions retain power. As Nathan said, conservatism is all but dead. And electing politically correct Republicans will do very little to pull us back from the abyss.

Dictators, right or left, are all of a single kind: They are simply thieves. With power.

To support a dictator, as leftists are fond of doing, one identifies with a thief.

So, to follow the money in the case of dictator-supporting “socialists” like the bloated one or the Hungarian nazi, is to discover theft somewhere in the woodpile, and certainly financial mendacity on a large scale.

You miss the point. The point of the statement was that Mother Teresa never bad mouthed capitalism even though she had taken a vow of poverty. Moore and Soros bad mouth capitalism constantly but yet do every thing they can to make money using capitalism. If you can’t see what the author was saying is the same as your statements, then I feel sorry for you.

I have a simpler explanation: after a while, rich people get a bunch of connections with government officials. They go to fundraisers, they shmooze, they have somebody to go to when they have "problems" with some bureaucrat.

Their connections are valuable. And they become more valuable when government expands.

The attraction of a planned economy to such people is that they imagine that they will be among the planners.

40
posted on 12/13/2009 3:32:59 PM PST
by PapaBear3625
(Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.